DOCSLIB.ORG

Should People with Epilepsy Be Able to Drive? What Is an Acceptable Risk

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Should People with Epilepsy Be Able to Drive? What Is an Acceptable Risk Should people with epilepsy be able to drive? Every driver has a risk of an accident. 15% of drivers per year make insurance claims for motor vehicle accidents. Crashes bad enough to be reported to the police occur in 1% of drivers per year. Some drivers have a higher relative risk. Table 1. Causes leading to traffic deaths in the USA 1995-1997 Number Percentage Seizures 86 0.2% Diabetes 144 0.3% Cardiac and hypertensive disorders 1800 4.1% Young drivers (<25 years old) 10,579 24% Total deaths 43,884 100% Sheth SG, Krauss G, Krumholz A, Li G. Mortality in epilepsy: driving fatalities vs. other causes of death in patients with epilepsy Neurology 2004;63:1002-1007 Table 2. Variability of common and unavoidable factors in the population Accident rate ratios Maximum rate of accidents because of epilepsy 1.8 Sleep deprivation of 17-19 hours 2.0 Driving within the legal alcohol limit (0.05%) 2.0 Age>75 3.1 Age>70 2.0 Female<25 3.2 Male<25 7.0 Data from the website of the Belgian Traffic Bureau (BIVV) and the "IMMORTAL" project, a study funded by the EU 2004. In, Epilepsy and Driving in Europe - A report of the Second European Working Group on Epilepsy and Driving. The number of fatal accidents related to young drivers is 120 times higher than that of epilepsy-related accidents. The highest accident rate ratio (relative risk) for a driver with epilepsy is lower than that for young drivers, older drivers and driving while deprived of sleep or having drunk alcohol within the legal limit. The relative risk for drivers with epilepsy is only 1.84 for all accidents and 1.4 for serious accidents compared to the general population. It seems only fair to accept an increased accident rate ratio for people with epilepsy that is comparable to that accepted by the community for young people, elderly people and those driving within the legal alcohol limit. What is an acceptable risk for epilepsy? This depends on a number of factors, including: 1. Driving time. For private license, with about 1 hour/day driving (4% lifetime driving), there is only a 1 in 24 chance that seizures will occur while driving, if seizures occur at anytime. For a commercial driver license, there may be ≥8 hours per working day of driving (≥20% lifetime driving) and thus a greater chance of a seizure occurring while driving. 2. The percentage of seizures that leads to an accident if consciousness is impaired. For private licence, an accident rate of about 50% per seizure might be assumed. For commercial drivers, assume 80%, given the greater risk of controlling heavy vehicles 3. The likely outcome of an accident. For private licence, assume 21% chance of a serious accident (3% chance of fatality). For commercial drivers, it would be greater given heavy-goods vehicles, more people at risk per crash etc. 4. The chance of a seizure with impaired consciousness when awake The Austroads guidelines use duration seizure-free reflecting the chance of a seizure occurring in the next year. For a private license, it varies from 6 months to 2 years seizure free. For commercial drivers, ≥ 5 years seizure free is used (equivalent to a 2% seizure risk in the next year). Who should notify the Driving License Authority (DLA) if someone has a medical condition that affects driving ability? The driver? YES Such legislation now exists in all Australian states and territories. The treating doctor? NO Mandatory reporting does not work. It does not decrease the number of people with epilepsy that drive, it increases the non-reporting of seizures to the treating doctor and therefore interferes with treatment (not serving public or patient safety), and doctors don’t comply (e.g. South Australian experience). A 2003 American Association of Neurology survey revealed that in California, a state with mandatory reporting, 9% of patients with seizures said they had concealed relevant information from their physicians. 50% of those who had experienced a previous license suspension admitted to hiding relevant information from their doctors. A 1992 survey revealed comparable concerns. Under mandatory reporting, patients were six times more likely to compromise their medical care in order to continue driving (49% vs 8%). The doctor should advise their patient of the driving risks associated with their condition, advise them of their responsibility to report their medical condition to the DLA, and provide medical information to the DLA for their assessment of the patient’s fitness to drive. If a patient refuses to accept medical advice, then in exceptional circumstances and in the public interest, the doctor my need to breach patient confidentiality and disclose to the patient’s driving to the DLA. Who should certify fitness to drive? The DLA? YES, as it has the legal responsibility. The treating doctor? NO, as the doctor’s role is to provide relevant medical information to the authority with the legal responsibility. If the treating doctor is expected to certify fitness to drive, this creates a conflict of interest for the treating doctor. The doctor’s first priority is to the patient. Decisions regarding driving will influence, and will be influenced by, the doctor-patient relationship. There is pressure to make unsafe decisions and give patients the benefit of the doubt. Some patients develop the perception that the treating doctor has deprived them of their livelihood or imposed hardship. They can react by blaming the doctor, not following the doctor’s advice, or even by making threats. As stated above, doctors should give patients advice which may include telling them that they should not be driving and that they should report their medical condition to the DLA. Do you understand the form you’re filling in and signing? Are you familiar with the Austroads national guidelines for people with epilepsy [PDF 84 KB]? Have you completed the examination in accordance with national medical standards? Are you providing relevant medical information, certifying fitness to drive, or both? The ANZAN advised that unless there was a very clear case in which the patient was eligible or not to drive, that neurologists should not certify FTD but simply provide medical information to help the DLA determine FTD. Is an expert medical advisory panel available in your state? .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Shifting and Seizing: a Call to Reform Ohio's Outdated Restrictions on Drivers with Epilepsy
    SHIFTING AND SEIZING: A CALL TO REFORM OHIO’S OUTDATED RESTRICTIONS ON DRIVERS WITH EPILEPSY KATHRYN KRAMER I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 343 II. THE MEDICAL BACKGROUND .............................................. 347 III. DISABILITIES AND STIGMA OF EPILEPSY .............................. 351 IV. THE OHIO LICENSING STATUTES ......................................... 355 V. SEISURE -RELATED ACCIDENT CASE LAW ............................ 357 VI. PROBLEMS WITH THE APPLICATION .................................... 359 A. Basic Intent of the Statues Has Failed......................... 359 B. Unnecessary Imposition of Negligence upon Clearing Physicians............................................ 361 C. Abuse of Police Power................................................. 363 1. Over-Inclusive...................................................... 363 2. Under-Inclusive.................................................... 365 3. Undue Burden....................................................... 366 VII. CHANGES IN APPLICATION ................................................... 368 A. Three-Month Mandated Suspension of Driving Privileges........................................................ 368 B. Physician Immunity for Good-Faith Certifications............................................................... 369 C. Negligence Standard for Drivers with Epilepsy.......... 370 D. Subjective Approach.................................................... 371 VIII. CONCLUSION .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Epilepsy and Employment
    SYSTEM NAVIGATION Epilepsy and Employment Can I be fired because of my epilepsy? • Installing a safety shield around a piece of Both federal and provincial human rights codes machinery. prevent employers from firing someone because they • Installing a piece of carpet to cover a concrete have a diagnosis of epilepsy. However, employers floor in the employee’s work area. sometimes use other reasons to mask a discriminatory termination. • Putting work instructions in writing (rather than just giving them orally) if memory What are my rights if I am fired because of a difficulties/deficits are a side effect of the seizure seizure? disorder or anti-seizure medication. If you think you’ve lost your job because of your • Scheduling consistent work shifts if seizure epilepsy, whether or not your employer admits to it, activity is made worse by inconsistent sleep you have the right to use the Human Rights complaint patterns. process. Contact your community epilepsy agency for • Allowing an employee who experiences fatigue as guidance or the Office of the Ontario Human Rights a side effect of medication the place and Commission. opportunity to take frequent rest breaks. • Allowing an employee to take time off to recover What kind of accommodations should my after a seizure. employer make? Some people with epilepsy don’t require any For help with accommodation, contact your accommodations at work, while others may require community epilepsy agency at 1-866-EPILEPSY (1-866- accommodations to help them avoid triggers, ensure 374-5377). There are extensive resources for they can remain safe if they have a seizure while on employers about accommodations at the job, or help them adapt to seizure or medication www.epilepsyatwork.com.
    [Show full text]
  • The Firs' of A
    . _ BTainin , Paul it.; k Others St%idy, on Dri v ng by S '1 Popu ns. Al Report, Volume 'Conduct .of' the-_ .ect,and State ,=of the Art. Tm_sTippTior. DunlapaniA'ssociates, nc.,Darieff, Conn;. SP.ONS AGENCY Bureau of Educationfor the Handicapped (DH.E.W/:0E)*. Washington,(Lit'. Na jo al Highyay Tra ffic safety Administration (DOT) , Waghington, FEPORT SO DOT-.-HS7802 329 PUB DATE . Apr77, CONTRACT__ DOTT.HS-..701206` 10T? 167p..:. Frpr relatedinfor AVAILABLE F Nat-ion e.1 TechnicalInform- EDPS PPICE MFO 1/PC07' Plus- Pogta-g-a. DESCRIPTORS .Aurally'Handicapped:Cerebral Pal ..1-1 -0i7seas4.5: *Driver rcillcation; Emotionally Disturbed; FP1.1e.PsY; EgUiPment; Evaluaton Method-s;-*Handicapped; mental Tliness;' MPn4:ally t,feurologicallf - Handicappedt Physically Handicapped;.,'Special. Health Problems:- *State L'egislationts 'State iiicensitiq Boards; . - o *Traffic Safety. ., The firs' ofA -volumereporton,m.otol: veh driving by handicapped :parsons focuses, on driving behavior. f -cat 19. types of handicapping conditions. Information is deta&led,,Feg drivereducation an& assesslent materials', present ste* regarding licenSing,-relevantmedical opinion regarding licensing and .axamination, com-plicating factors (such as theuseof therapeutic4 drugs) ,and private-and commercialdriving behavior for specific -. conditions, including the following: mental retardation, mental illness, neurologic and carebrovascular handicaps, epilepsy, - diabetes., musculoskeletal handicaps,. hearingAisoriers,thyro diseasei renal disorders, cancer, and obesity. Automotive. adaptive equipmer# 'is briefly coneidered monq 12 recommeldations. made. are. for a more comprehensive analysis' of the drliving task for, normal Itivars4 'a large scalp epidemiological studyto measure the acoidan,+. .and:7:Lolation sates of sc:),cifio,haUdicapped groups, and validat-d Asse,sSnient and evaluation oroc,edurs.
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Regulatory Driving Behaviour, Perceived Abilities and Comfort Level of Older Drivers with Parkinson’S Disease Compared to Age-Matched Controls
    Self-Regulatory Driving Behaviour, Perceived Abilities and Comfort Level of Older Drivers with Parkinson’s disease compared to Age-Matched Controls by Alexander Michael Crizzle A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Health Studies and Gerontology - Aging, Health and Well-Being Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2011 © Alexander Michael Crizzle 2011 Declaration I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. ii Abstract Introduction: Multiple studies have shown the symptoms of Parkinson‟s disease (PD) can impair driving performance. Studies have also found elevated crash rates in drivers with PD, however, none have controlled for exposure or amount of driving. Although a few studies have suggested that drivers with PD may self-regulate (e.g., by reducing exposure or avoiding challenging situations), findings were based on self-report data. Studies with healthy older drivers have shown that objective driving data is more accurate than self-estimates. Purposes: The primary objectives of this study were to examine whether drivers with PD restrict their driving (exposure and patterns) relative to an age-matched control group and explore possible reasons for such restrictions: trip purposes, perceptions of driving comfort and abilities, as well as depression, disease severity and symptoms associated with PD. Methods: A convenience sample of 27 drivers with PD (mean 71.6±6.6, range 57 to 82, 78% men) and 20 age-matched control drivers from the same region (70.6±7.9, range 57 to 84, 80% men) were assessed between October 2009 and August 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 1 Ex-Post Evaluation of the Rsap
    FINAL REPORT - VOLUME 1 EX-POST EVALUATION OF THE RSAP SPECIFIC CONTRACT DG TREN A2/143-2007 Lot 2 Impact Assessments and Evaluations in the field of transport The preparation of the European Road Safety Action Program 2011-2020 Authors: Simone Bosetti (TRT) Caterina Corrias (TRT) Rosario Scatamacchia (TRT) Alessio Sitran (TRT) With contributions of Eef Delhaye (TML) January 10th 2010 TRANSPORT & MOBILITY LEUVEN VITAL DECOSTERSTRAAT 67A BUS 0001 3000 LEUVEN BELGIË TEL +32 (16) 31.77.30 FAX +32 (16) 31.77.39 http://www.tmleuven.be Index INDEX .......................................................................................................................................................................1 FIGURES ......................................................................................................................................................................3 TABLES .......................................................................................................................................................................4 BOXES .......................................................................................................................................................................5 PREFACE .....................................................................................................................................................................6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .........................................................................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Fitness to Drive for Commercial and Private Vehicle Drivers
    Assessing fitness to drive for commercial and private vehicle drivers 2021 edition (draft for consultation purposes released 3 May, 2021) Assessing fitness to drive 2021 (draft) Contents PART A: General information .......................................................................................... 5 1. About this publication ............................................................................................... 6 Purpose ............................................................................................................ 6 Target audience ................................................................................................ 7 Scope................................................................................................................ 7 Content ............................................................................................................. 8 Development and evidence base ...................................................................... 9 2. Principles of assessing fitness to drive .................................................................. 11 The driving task ................................................................................................ 11 Medical conditions and driving ......................................................................... 13 Assessing and supporting functional driver capacity ........................................ 25 3. Roles and responsibilities ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • EPILEPSY in the WORKPLACE a TUC Guide CONTENTS
    EPILEPSY IN THE WORKPLACE A TUC guide CONTENTS SECTION 1 The social versus the medical model 04 SECTION 2 What is epilepsy? 06 SECTION 3 Myths and facts 08 SECTION 4 Epilepsy in the workplace 09 SECTION 5 How workplaces can create difficulties for workers with epilepsy 11 SECTION 6 Making workplaces epilepsy-friendly 16 SECTION 7 Nothing about people with epilepsy without people with epilepsy 17 SECTION 8 Epilepsy and Parliament 18 SECTION 9 Using the right language 19 SECTION 10 Crime against people with epilepsy 20 SECTION 11 A guide to the law 22 SECTION 12 Epilepsy and trade unions: what the union can do 23 SECTION 13 Resources and useful websites 24 About the author Kathy Bairstow is a UNISON member and works as the senior advice and information officer at Epilepsy Action. Her work involves providing advice and information to anyone with an interest or concern about epilepsy. This includes members of the public; employment, health and other professionals; and the media. She was a patient representative on the NICE Guideline CG20 – The Epilepsies: the diagnosis and management of the epilepsies in adults and children in primary and secondary care. Kathy had epilepsy as a child, as did two of her three children. She no longer has epilepsy, but does have several long-term health conditions. Introduction by the TUC General Secretary I am delighted that the TUC has worked with Epilepsy Action to produce this new guide for trade unionists on supporting members with epilepsy. The author is a specialist and a trade unionist so this briefing will be an authoritative aid to union reps, officers and members on dealing with the issues facing members with epilepsy in the workplace.
    [Show full text]
  • Driving Policy After Seizures and Unexplained Syncope: a Practice Guide for RI Physicians
    CONTRIBUTION Driving Policy after Seizures and Unexplained Syncope: A Practice Guide for RI Physicians MAXWELL E. AFARI, MD; ANDREW S. BLUM, MD, PHD; STEPHEN T. MERNOFF, MD; BRIAN R. OTT, MD 40 43 EN ABSTRACT chose from six possible driving restriction durations: No Physicians in Rhode Island sometimes find it difficult restriction, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, to advise patients about returning to driving after they other (with explanation). The questions asked are presented present with a seizure or syncopal episode due to lack in Table 1. of statutory or professional guidance on the issue. We provide an overview of the medical literature on public policies and recommendations regarding driving after RESULTS seizures or syncope. We also present the laws in Rhode According to RINS/RINA/AAN records there are approxi- Island regarding physician notification of the medical ad- mately 60 practicing neurologists in RI, and most of them visory board of the Department of Motor Vehicles, legal were contacted to complete the survey. Thirty neurologists, obligations, and immunity from prosecution for those representing approximately 50% of practicing neurologists who report. Finally, we present the results of a survey of in Rhode Island, responded to the survey. As demonstrated current practice by Rhode Island neurologists when they in Table 2, in the setting of a first seizure with loss of con- advise patients who have had a recent seizure or unex- sciousness, more than half of the respondents recommended plained syncopal event. Based upon this information, we a 6-month driving restriction irrespective of an identified hope local practitioners are empowered in their decision seizure focus (70.0 %) or normal EEG and MRI (63.3%).
    [Show full text]
  • Epilepsy and Driving Frederick Andermann, G.M
    LE JOURNAL CANADIEN DES SCIENCES NEUROLOGIQUES SPF.riAI.RF.PORT Epilepsy and Driving Frederick Andermann, G.M. Remillard, Benjamin G. Zifkin, Antonio G. Trottier and Patrice Drouin Can. J. Neurol. Sci. 1988; 15:371-377 INTRODUCTION Even with the strictest standards and regular medical follow- (Frederick Andermann) up, traffic accidents may still be caused by illness, but studies of accidents in the general population are usually inadequate to The risk of losing consciousness while driving a motor vehi­ answer basic questions about the medically-impaired driver. cle and the need to drive a car in today's society are opposing They often evaluate the incidence of accidents in drivers with forces at play in determining the fitness and ability of people organic deficits or some reported chronic illness. Ideal epi­ with epilepsy to drive. We must remember that until some 20 demiologic studies of epilepsy and driving would have to be years ago, in Canada and in many other countries people with performed over large regions with uniform licensing laws. Such epilepsy were not allowed to drive. A movement by Canadian studies would require that the state of health of all applicants for neurologists to establish guidelines which would enable people driving permits be determined, and that medical evaluations be with controlled or remitted epilepsy to drive was headed by the performed on all accident victims, including autopsies in fatal late Dr. Francis McNaughton and by Dr. Guy Courtois. At cases. Their driving experience would also require evaluation.1 present, legislation allowing people with controlled epilepsy to 2 drive exists in every province or state of Canada and the United Raffle's study of London bus drivers meets all these criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • PLANNING for CONCENTRATED IMPLEMENTATION of HIGHWAY SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES Volume 4: Report Bibliography
    Report HSRI-71-117 PLANNING FOR CONCENTRATED IMPLEMENTATION OF HIGHWAY SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES Volume 4: Report Bibliography John A. Olson Joseph C. Marsh IV Highway Safety Research Institute Institute of Science and Technology The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 481 05 August 1971 Final Report 1 July 1970 to 31 August 1971 Prepared for National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20591 Prepared for the Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, under Contract FH-11-7613. The opinion, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. I Report No. 1 2. Government Accession No. 1 3. Recipient's Catalog No. I I HSRI-71-117: Vol. 4 I I 4 Title and Subt~tle 5. Report Date PLANNING FOR CONCENTRATED IMPLEMENTATION OF August 1971 HIGHWAY SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES Volume 4: Report Bibliography I 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. 1 John A. Olson Joseph C. Marsh IV HSRI-71-117; Vol. 4 i 9. Performing Organlzat~onName and Address 10. Work Unit No. Highway Safety Research Institute Institute of Science and Technology 11. Contract or Grant No. The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 IFH-11-7613 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 1 1 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Final Report National Highway Traffic Safety ~dministration July 1 1970-Aug 31 1971 Department of rans sport at ion I Washington, D.C. 20591 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 1 --- 15 Supplemelltary Notes 16. Abstract This document contains a report bibliography defining a data base on the state of the art in highway safety counter- measure development for each of the sixteen safety standards.
    [Show full text]
  • Epilepsy and Driving
    Editorial Epilepsy and driving Sonia A. Khan, MD, FRCP. pilepsy is a neurological disorder characterized by on driving and epilepsy. One hundred and sixty- Erecurrent seizures, which result in an altered level of six responses were received from 96 of 134 (72%) consciousness.1 Although appropriate management with countries. One hundred and six neurologists (of 231 antiepileptic drugs can result in seizure remission, 30- queried [46%]) responded. In 16 countries, epileptic 40% of epileptic patients are incompletely controlled.1 patients are not permitted to drive. In the remaining A number of studies have shown that epileptic patients countries, these patients must have a seizure-free period are more likely than age-matched controls to experience of 6-36 months.10 This period varies according to the motor vehicle accidents (MVAs).2 As a result, most type of seizure. In 5 countries, physicians must report developed countries impose driving regulations on the names of these patients to their local authorities. epileptic patients.3,4 However, the exact risk of epilepsy In many countries, the rules and regulations are being and MVAs is difficult to assess because of methodological reevaluated and changed.10 Unfortunately, laws that flaws in most studies.5,6 A recent review of the literature govern driving for epileptic patients are variable from found that there was limited class one studies evaluating country to country, and from one state to the other in the risk of crashes in epileptic patients.5,6 Therefore, the United States, requiring individual practitioners to there is a need to identify those epileptic patients with be familiar with the local regulations.11 In 16 countries, a high likelihood of seizure recurrence.
    [Show full text]
  • Part B: Medical Standards
    PART B: MEDICAL STANDARDS 31 PART B: MEDICAL STANDARDS BLACKOUTS 1. BLACKOUTS 1.1 Relevance TO THE DRIVING task For the purposes of this standard, the term ‘blackout’ means a transient impairment or loss of consciousness. Loss of consciousness is clearly incompatible with safe driving. The evidence for crash risk associated with various causes of blackout is discussed in the relevant chapters. This chapter provides guidance regarding the general management of blackouts, with cross-reference to relevant chapters as per Figure 6 overleaf. 1.2 GENERAL ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES 1.2.1 General considerations Blackouts may occur due to a number of mechanisms including: • vasovagal syncope or ‘faint’, which accounts for over 50% of blackouts and may be due to factors such as hot weather, emotion or venepuncture, but may also be due to more serious causes that may recur • syncope due to other cardiovascular causes such as structural heart disease, arrhythmias or vascular disease • epileptic seizure, which accounts for less than 10% of blackouts • other causes including metabolic (e.g. hypoglycaemia), drug intoxication or sleep disorder. Determination of the mechanism of a blackout may be straightforward based on history, investigations and specialist referral, and the person may be managed as per the appropriate chapter. Alternatively, it may require extensive cardiovascular and neurological investigations and referral to several specialists. People should be advised not to drive until the mechanism is ascertained and the corresponding standard met. Some drivers may attribute a crash or driving mishap to a ‘blackout’ in order to excuse an event that occurred for some other reason such as inattention or distraction (e.g.
    [Show full text]